Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Magnitude of Structural, Clinical, and Physician and Patient Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation

COVID-19 clinical trial participation and awareness in Texas

The COVID-19 pandemic required the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, necessitating quick yet representative clinical trial enrollment to evaluate these preventive measures. However, misinformation around the COVID-19 pandemic and general concerns about clinical trial participation in the U.S. hindered clinical trial enrollment. This study assessed awareness of, willingness to participate in, and enrollment in COVID-19 vaccine and treatment clinical trials in Texas. A quota sample of 1,089 Texas residents was collected online from June - July 2022. Respondents were asked if they were aware of, willing to participate in, and had enrolled in clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines or treatments. Overall, 45.8% of respondents reported being aware of clinical trials for COVID-19 treatments or vaccines, but only 21.7% knew how to enroll and only 13.2% had enrolled in a COVID-19 clinical trial. Respondents with bachelor's or graduate degrees were more likely to be aware of clinical trials, more likely to have enrolled in trials, and more willing to participate in treatment trials. Women were less willing to participate and less likely to have enrolled in COVID-19 clinical trials than men. Respondents aged 55 years and older were more willing to participate, but less likely to have enrolled in COVID-19 clinical trials than 18-to-24-year-olds. Common reasons given for not participating in clinical trials included concerns that COVID-19 treatments may not be safe, government distrust, and uncertainty about what clinical trial participation would entail. Substantial progress is needed to build community awareness and increase enrollment in clinical trials.

Methylphenidate Versus Placebo for Treating Fatigue in Patients With Advanced Cancer: Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Placebo-Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To compare effects and side effects of 6 weeks of individually dose-titrated methylphenidate or placebo on fatigue in palliative care patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Eligible patients had advanced incurable cancer and fatigue >3/10. Principal exclusions were hypertension; psychiatric, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, renal, liver, or blood disorders; substance dependency; and epilepsy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 methylphenidate or placebo starting at 5 mg twice daily. Dose of methylphenidate/placebo was titrated once per week, over 6 weeks, up to a maximum of 20 mg three times daily. Trial ended at 10 weeks. Primary outcome was the difference in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue (FACIT-F) scores between groups at 6 ± 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes included adverse effects, quality of life, and mood.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-two patients (73 men; mean, 65.8; standard deviation [SD], 10.3 years) were randomly assigned, and three were excluded from analysis. Seventy-seven were allocated placebo (baseline FACIT-F = 22 [SD, 10]); 82 were allocated methylphenidate (FACIT-F = 20 [SD, 9]). After 6 ± 2 weeks, FACIT-F scores were 1.97 points (95% CI, -0.95 to 4.90; P = .186) higher (better) on methylphenidate than placebo. Across 10 weeks of the study, FACIT-F was nominally higher in the methylphenidate group versus placebo (Diff, 2.20 [95% CI, 0.39 to 4.01]), but this did not reach the minimally clinically important difference (5-points). At 6 weeks, there were no differences between groups in quality-of-life or symptom domains except for depression scores (nominally reduced in the methylphenidate group: Diff, -1.35 [95% CI, -2.41 to -0.30]). There were no differences in mortality or serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

After 6 ± 2 weeks of treatment, methylphenidate was not superior to placebo for treating fatigue in advanced cancer. Methylphenidate was safe and well-tolerated.

Trial Participation in Neurodegenerative Diseases: Barriers and Facilitators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Clinical trials in neurodegenerative diseases often encounter selective enrollment and under-representation of certain patient populations. This delays drug development and substantially limits the generalizability of clinical trial results. To inform recruitment and retention strategies, and to better understand the generalizability of clinical trial populations, we investigated which factors drive participation.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature systematically to identify barriers to and facilitators of trial participation in 4 major neurodegenerative disease areas: Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and Huntington disease. Inclusion criteria included original research articles published in a peer-reviewed journal and evaluating barriers to and/or facilitators of participation in a clinical trial with a drug therapy (either symptomatic or disease-modifying). The Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist for qualitative studies was used to assess and ensure the quality of the studies. Qualitative thematic analyses were employed to identify key enablers of trial participation. Subsequently, we pooled quantitative data of each enabler using meta-analytical models.

RESULTS

Overall, we identified 36 studies, enrolling a cumulative sample size of 5,269 patients, caregivers, and health care professionals. In total, the thematic analysis resulted in 31 unique enablers of trial participation; the key factors were patient-related (own health benefit and altruism), study-related (treatment and study burden), and health care professional-related (information availability and patient-physician relationship). When meta-analyzed across studies, responders reported that the reason to participate was mainly driven by (1) the relationship with clinical staff (70% of the respondents; 95% CI 53%-83%), (2) the availability of study information (67%, 95% CI 38%-87%), and (3) the use or absence of a placebo or sham-control arm (53% 95% CI 32%-72%). There was, however, significant heterogeneity between studies (all p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

We have provided a comprehensive list of reasons why patients participate in clinical trials for neurodegenerative diseases. These results may help to increase participation rates, better inform patients, and facilitate patient-centric approaches, thereby potentially reducing selection mechanisms and improving generalizability of trial results.

Unlocking the potential of Molecular Tumor Boards: from cutting-edge data interpretation to innovative clinical pathways

The emerging era of precision medicine is characterized by an increasing availability of targeted anticancer therapies and by the parallel development of techniques to obtain more refined molecular data, whose interpretation may not always be straightforward. Molecular tumor boards gather various professional figures, in order to leverage the analysis of molecular data and provide prognostic and predictive insights for clinicians. In addition to healthcare development, they could also become a tool to promote knowledge and research spreading. A growing body of evidence on the application of molecular tumor boards to clinical practice is forming and positive signals are emerging, although a certain degree of heterogeneity exists. This work analyzes molecular tumor boards' potential workflows, figures involved, data sources, sample matrices and eligible patients, as well as available evidence and learning examples. The emerging concept of multi-institutional, disease-specific molecular tumor boards is also considered by presenting two ongoing nationwide experiences.

Real-world clinical and economic outcomes for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer enrolled in a clinical trial following comprehensive genomic profiling via liquid biopsy

BACKGROUND

Oncology clinical trial enrollment is strongly recommended for patients with cancer who are not eligible for established and approved therapies. Many trials are specific to biomarker-targeted therapies, which are typically managed as specialty pharmacy services. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of advanced cancers has been shown to detect biomarkers, guide targeted treatment, improve outcomes, and result in the clinical trial enrollment of patients, which is modeled to offset pharmacy costs experienced by US payers, yet payer policy coverage remains inconsistent. A common concern limiting coverage of CGP by payers is the potential of identifying biomarkers beyond guideline-recommended treatments, which creates a perception that insurance companies are being positioned to "pay for research." However, these biomarkers can increase clinical trial eligibility, and specialty pharmacy management may have an interest in maximizing the clinical trial enrollment of members.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if clinical trial enrollment following liquid biopsy CGP for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is clinically and/or economically impactful from a payer claims perspective.

METHODS

Clinical and economic outcomes were studied using a real-world clinical genomic database (including payer claims data) from patients with NSCLC who enrolled in clinical trials immediately following liquid biopsy CGP (using Guardant360) and matched NSCLC patient controls also tested with liquid biopsy CGP.

RESULTS

Real-world overall survival was significantly (log-rank P < 0.0001) better for patients enrolled in clinical trials with similar costs of care, albeit with more outpatient encounters among those enrolled compared with matched controls.

CONCLUSIONS

The results, together with previous analyses, suggest that, in addition to the clinical benefits associated with targeted therapies directed by CGP and other testing approaches, payers and specialty pharmacy managers may consider clinical trial direction and enrollment as a clinical and economic benefit of liquid biopsy CGP and adopt this into coverage decision frameworks and formularies.

Disparities in cancer clinical trials information-seeking: Findings from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service

OBJECTIVE

To better understand cancer clinical trials (CCT) information-seeking, a necessary precursor to patient and provider engagement with CCT.

METHODS

Data from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service (CIS) were used to examine CCT information-seeking patterns over a 5-year period. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine characteristics of CIS inquiries and their associations with having a CCT discussion.

RESULTS

Between September 2018 - August 2023, 117,016 CIS inquiries originated from cancer survivors, caregivers, health professionals, and the general public; 27.5 % of these inquiries included a CCT discussion (n = 32,160). Among CCT discussions, 35.5 % originated from survivors, 53.5 % from caregivers, 6.1 % from the public, and 4.9 % from health professionals. Inquiries in Spanish had lower odds of a CCT discussion (OR=.26, [.25-.28]), whereas inquiries emanating from the CIS instant messaging (OR=2.29, [2.22-2.37]) and email (OR=1.24, [1.18-1.30]) platforms were associated with higher odds of discussing CCT compared to the telephone. Individuals who were male, younger, insured, and had higher income and education had significantly higher odds of a CCT discussion while those who were non-Hispanic Black and living in rural locales had significantly lower odds.

CONCLUSIONS

Disparities in CCT information-seeking may contribute to downstream CCT participation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Quality, language-concordant health information is needed to enable equitable awareness of - and ultimately engagement in - CCT.

Participants' perceptions support the coexistence of benefits and burdens of cancer clinical trial participation

BACKGROUND

To advance oncology treatment for adults, comprehensive understanding of how and why people decide to enroll in, remain in, and withdraw from cancer clinical trials is needed. While quantitative findings provide insights into these benefits and burdens, they provide limited understanding of how adults with cancer appraise their situation and approach decisions to undertake a clinical trial. The goal of this mixed methods analysis was to conceptualize participants' assessment of benefits and burdens related to cancer clinical trial participation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This sub-group analysis of 21 participants was part of a larger sequential, explanatory mixed methods study. We used Creamer's integrated approach to linking quantitative and qualitative data to assess convergence, with qualitative data explaining quantitative results. Participants were grouped into four categories based on quantitative benefit/burden scores and thematic analysis of their qualitative data was used to describe these categories.

RESULTS

Across groups participants varied in descriptions of benefits and burdens of cancer clinical trial participation and reasons for participating. Those reporting high benefit/low burden described "seizing the opportunity to participate;" those reporting low benefit/low burden described "taking responsibility" through trial participation; those reporting low benefit/high burden described how they were "willing to endure," and those with high benefit/high burden emphasized "deciding to act."

CONCLUSIONS

Participants' qualitative descriptions of benefits and burdens were more nuanced and dynamic than reflected in their quantitative ratings. Thus, current measures may be missing important concepts, such as logistic challenges of trial participation. Our results have implications for consenting procedures and decisional support guidance offered to patients and their caregivers.

National Estimates of the Participation of Patients With Cancer in Clinical Research Studies Based on Commission on Cancer Accreditation Data

PURPOSE

National estimates of cancer clinical trial participation are nearly two decades old and have focused solely on enrollment to treatment trials, which does not reflect the willingness of patients to contribute to other elements of clinical research. We determined inclusive, contemporary estimates of clinical trial participation for adults with cancer using a national sample of data from the Commission on Cancer (CoC).

METHODS

The data were obtained from accreditation information submitted by the 1,200 CoC programs, which represent more than 70% of all cancer cases diagnosed in the United States each year. Deidentified, institution-level aggregate counts of annual enrollment to treatment, biorepository, diagnostic, economic, genetic, prevention, quality-of-life (QOL), and registry studies were examined. Overall, study-type estimates for the period 2013-2017 were estimated. Multiple imputation by chained equations was used to account for missing data, with summary estimates calculated separately by type of program (eg, National Cancer Institute [NCI]-designated cancer centers) and pooled.

RESULTS

The overall estimated patient participation rate to cancer treatment trials was 7.1%. Patients with cancer participated in a wide variety of other studies, including biorepository (12.9%), registry (7.3%), genetic (3.6%), QOL (2.8%), diagnostic (2.5%), and economic (2.4%) studies. Treatment trial enrollment was 21.6% at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers, 5.4% at academic (non-NCI-designated) comprehensive cancer programs, 5.7% at integrated network cancer programs, and 4.1% at community programs. One in five patients (21.9%) participated in one or more cancer clinical research studies.

CONCLUSION

In a first-time use of national accreditation information from the CoC, enrollment to cancer treatment trials was 7.1%, higher than historical estimates of <5%. Patients participated in a diverse set of other study types. Contributions of adult patients with cancer to clinical research is more common than previously understood.

Impact of Facility Type on Survival in Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia: A Propensity Score Matched, National Cancer Database Analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) is a rare and likely underdiagnosed hematologic malignancy. Due to its rarity and nuances in diagnosis, many patients are referred to tertiary referral centers, although many continue to be cared for in the community setting. Given discrepancies in outcomes based on facility type in related myeloid malignancies, we hypothesized that CMML patients treated at academic centers may have improved survival as compared to patients treated at nonacademic centers (NACs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we identified 6290 patients with CMML and collected data on demographics, comorbidities, treatment, and survival. We also performed a propensity matched analysis to control for baseline differences.

RESULTS

We found that patients at academic centers had higher median overall survival (OS) (17.7 months vs 14.7 months) and 5-year OS (19.1% vs 15.3%) than patients at NACs. In addition, patients treated at an academic center were also more likely to receive hematopoietic stem cell transplant as compared to those treated at NACs. Time to treatment initiation was overall similar between academic and NACs.

CONCLUSION

Our study of one of the largest available datasets of CMML patients supports the importance of referring CMML patients to academic centers upon diagnosis to optimize outcomes in this rare hematologic malignancy.

A process to reanalyze clinical DNA sequencing data for biomarker matching in the Lung-MAP Master Protocol

For cancer clinical trials that require central confirmation of tumor genomic profiling, exhaustion of tissue from standard-of-care testing may prevent enrollment. For Lung-MAP, a master protocol that requires results from a defined centralized clinical trial assay to assign patients to a therapeutic substudy, we developed a process to repurpose existing commercial vendor raw genomic data for eligibility: genomic data reanalysis (GDR). Molecular results for substudy assignment were successfully generated for 369 of the first 374 patients (98.7%) using GDR for Lung-MAP, with a median time from request to result of 9 days. During the same period, 691 of 791 (87.4%) tissue samples received successfully yielded results, in a median of 14 days beyond sample acquisition. GDR is a scalable bioinformatic pipeline that expedites reanalysis of existing data for clinical trials in which validated integral biomarker testing is required for participation.

Navigating the challenges of clinical trial professionals in the healthcare sector

Clinical trials (CTs) are essential for medical advancements but face significant challenges, particularly in professional training and role clarity. Principal investigators, clinical research coordinators (CRCs), nurses, clinical trial pharmacists, and monitors are key players. Each faces unique challenges, such as maintaining protocol compliance, managing investigational products, and ensuring data integrity. Clinical trials' complexity and evolving nature demand specialized and ongoing training for these professionals. Addressing these challenges requires clear role delineation, continuous professional development, and supportive workplace environments to improve retention and trial outcomes. Enhanced training programs and a collaborative approach are essential for the successful conduct of clinical trials and the advancement of medical research.

Defining Practice Capacity for Cancer Care Delivery to Adolescents and Young Adults in the Community Setting: 2022 Landscape Assessment Results

Background: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) commonly receive cancer care in the community setting, but the availability of treatment options, resources, and support services for this population is not well known. The National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) funds a network of practices whose mission is to increase access to cancer care and clinical trials in the community setting. We describe our interdisciplinary methodological approach to identify and characterize NCORP practices where AYAs receive cancer care. Methods: NCORP practices completed a cross-sectional Landscape Assessment to describe resources and practice characteristics. We established an interdisciplinary team of stakeholders to analyze the Landscape Assessment data relating to AYAs. Through an iterative process, we assessed NCORP practice responses to questions assessing AYA cancer care capacity, determined a threshold to define practices treating AYAs, and characterized these practices. Results: We determined that practices provide cancer care to AYAs if the following criteria were met: (1) endorsed having an AYA program (n = 20), (2) AYAs comprised ≥5% of annual cancer cases (n = 55), or (3) the practice treated ≥50 AYA cancer cases annually (n = 70). Of 271 NCORP practices, 100 (37%) met any criteria, whereas 87 (32%) did not; 84 (31%) could not be classified due to missing or unknown data. Conclusion: Using an interdisciplinary process, we define practices that treat AYAs in the community. We posit a uniform approach to examine resources and practice capacity for AYAs receiving cancer care across the United States to guide future AYA-focused cancer care delivery research development.

Revolutionizing Neurocare: Biomimetic Nanodelivery Via Cell Membranes

Brain disorders represent a significant challenge in medical science due to the formidable blood-brain barrier (BBB), which severely limits the penetration of conventional therapeutics, hindering effective treatment strategies. This review delves into the innovative realm of biomimetic nanodelivery systems, including stem cell-derived nanoghosts, tumor cell membrane-coated nanoparticles, and erythrocyte membrane-based carriers, highlighting their potential to circumvent the BBB's restrictions. By mimicking native cell properties, these nanocarriers emerge as a promising solution for enhancing drug delivery to the brain, offering a strategic advantage in overcoming the barrier's selective permeability. The unique benefits of leveraging cell membranes from various sources is evaluated and advanced technologies for fabricating cell membrane-encapsulated nanoparticles capable of masquerading as endogenous cells are examined. This enables the targeted delivery of a broad spectrum of therapeutic agents, ranging from small molecule drugs to proteins, thereby providing an innovative approach to neurocare. Further, the review contrasts the capabilities and limitations of these biomimetic nanocarriers with traditional delivery methods, underlining their potential to enable targeted, sustained, and minimally invasive treatment modalities. This review is concluded with a perspective on the clinical translation of these biomimetic systems, underscoring their transformative impact on the therapeutic landscape for intractable brain diseases.

Differences in cancer clinical trial activity and trial characteristics at metropolitan and rural trial sites in Victoria, Australia

OBJECTIVE

Cancer clinical trials (CCTs) provide access to emerging therapies and extra clinical care. We aimed to describe the volume and characteristics of CCTs available across Victoria, Australia, and identify factors associated with rural trial location.

METHODS

Quantitative analysis of secondary data from Cancer Council Victoria's Clinical Trials Management Scheme dataset.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study design was used.

SETTING

CCTs were available Victoria-wide in 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

There were 1669 CCTs and 5909 CCT participants.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rural CCT location was assessed as a binary variable with categories of 'yes' (modified Monash [MM] categories 2-7) and 'no' (MM category 1). MM categories were determined from postcodes. The highest ('least rural') MM category was used for postcodes with multiple MM categories.

RESULTS

Of 1669 CCTs, 168 (10.1%) were conducted in rural areas. Of 5909 CCT participants, 315 (5.3%) participated in rural CCTs. There were 526 CCTs (31.5%) with 1907 (32.3%) newly enrolled participants. Of 1892 newly enrolled participants with postcode data, 488 (25.8%) were rural residents. Of them, 368 (75.4%) participated in metropolitan CCTs. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis for all 1669 CCTs, odds of a rural rather than metropolitan CCT location were significantly (p-value <0.05) lower for early-phase than late-phase trials and non-solid than solid tumour trials but significantly (p-value <0.05) higher for non-industry than industry-sponsored trials.

CONCLUSIONS

In Victoria, 10% of CCTs are at rural sites. Most rural-residing CCT participants travel to metropolitan sites, where there are more late-phase, non-solid-tumour and industry-sponsored trials. Approaches to increase the volume and variety of rural CCTs should be considered.

Amplifying the Patient's Voice in Oncology Early-Phase Clinical Trials: Solutions to Burdens and Barriers

Dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs) provide early access to novel compounds of potential therapeutic benefit in addition to providing critical safety and dosing information. While access to trials for which a patient is eligible remains the largest barrier to enrollment on clinical trials, additional direct and indirect barriers unique to enrollment on DFOTs are often overlooked but worthy of consideration. Direct barriers including financial costs of care, travel and time investments, and logical challenges including correlative study designs are important to bear in mind when developing strategies to facilitate the patient experience on DFOTs. Indirect barriers such as strict eligibility criteria, washout periods, and concomitant medication restrictions should be accounted for during DFOT design to maintain the fidelity of the trial without being overly exclusionary. Involving patients and advocates and incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) throughout the process, from initial DFOT design, through patient recruitment and participation, is critical to informing strategies to minimize identified barriers to offer the benefit of DFOTs to all patients.

Diversity in Cardio-Oncology Clinical Trials: JACC: CardioOncology How To

•Intersectionality of health inequities in CVD and cancer may compound inequities in cardio-oncology.•Equitable access to clinical trials is 1 of many key strategies to mitigate these health disparities.•Cardio-oncology trials should collect and report the race and ethnicity of participants, including disaggregate data on smaller minority groups.•Successful interventions consist of multilevel strategies targeting structural-, clinical-, provider-, and patient-level barriers.

Transferring care to enhance access to early-phase cancer clinical trials: Protocol to evaluate a novel program

Involving diverse populations in early-phase (phase I and II) cancer clinical trials is critical to informed therapeutic development. However, given the growing costs and complexities of early-phase trials, trial activation and enrollment barriers may be greatest for these studies at healthcare facilities that provide care to the most diverse patient groups, including those in historically underserved communities (e.g., safety-net healthcare systems). To promote diverse and equitable access to early-phase cancer clinical trials, we are implementing a novel program for the transfer of care to enhance access to early-phase cancer clinical trials. We will then perform a mixed-methods study to determine perceptions and impact of the program. Specifically, we will screen, recruit, and enroll diverse patients from an urban, integrated safety-net healthcare system to open and active early-phase clinical trials being conducted in a university-based cancer center. To evaluate this novel program, we will: (1) determine program impact and efficiency; and (2) determine stakeholder experience with and perceptions of the program. To achieve these goals, we will conduct preliminary cost analyses of the program. We will also conduct surveys and interviews with patients and caregivers to elucidate program impact, challenges, and areas for improvement. We hypothesize that broadening access to early-phase cancer trials conducted at experienced centers may improve equity and diversity. In turn, such efforts may enhance the efficiency and generalizability of cancer clinical research.

Patient-Reported Outcomes as a Recruitment Strategy for Clinical Trial Enrollment

Importance

Clinical trials are critical for progress in oncology; however, only 5% of the adult cancer population participates. Harnessing data that are routinely collected (ie, electronic patient-reported outcomes [ePROs]) may serve as a method to promote trial enrollment.

Objective

To evaluate if an ePRO-prompted recruitment strategy is associated with increased clinical trial enrollment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A randomized substudy was conducted from September 2022 to March 2023 at a multisite tertiary cancer center as part of an ongoing clinical trial that was testing a symptom-intervention for cancer-related fatigue. Patients with breast cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy who completed at least 1 ePRO questionnaire during the study period were included. Physician-level cluster randomization assigned fatigue-eligible patients to either receive a portal message invitation to a symptom-intervention trial or standard of care (SOC; physician-based referral).

Exposure

ePRO questionnaires distributed in routine practice were queried weekly and screened for moderate or greater fatigue, the principle inclusion criterion for the primary trial. To assess the association of the portal message source with response and enrollment, every other patient received a message from the primary radiation oncology team or the referral service.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinical trial response/referral and enrollment.

Results

A total of 1041 patients completed ePRO questionnaires, of whom 394 (38%; 53 Asian [13.6%], 43 Black [11.0%], 29 Hispanic [7.4%], and 262 White individuals [66.5%]; median [IQR] age, 55 [47-65] years) endorsed moderate or greater fatigue while receiving treatment. A total of 210 patients (53.3%) were assigned to receive a portal message and 184 (46.7%) patients, SOC. In the portal message group, 73 patients (35%) responded and 41 (20%) enrolled compared with 1 patient (0.5%) referred and 0 enrolled in the SOC group (P < .001). The response rate to portal messages favored the referral service vs the primary radiation oncology service (44% vs 26%; P = .01), but there was no significant difference in enrollments.

Conclusions and Relevance

The study results suggest that use of routine care ePROs was associated with greater enrollment in a symptom-intervention trial compared with physician-based referral. Messaging directly from the referral service may support enrollment and help reduce oncology physician-level barriers to trial enrollment for studies testing symptom interventions.

Oncologist-Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Offering Cancer Clinical Trials to Their Patients

NCCN guidelines indicate that cancer clinical trials (CCTs) are the best management for patients with cancer. However, only 5% of patients enroll in them. We examined oncologists' perceived barriers and facilitators to discussing CCTs. This qualitative study was part of the ASCO-ACCC Initiative to Increase Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Clinical Trials. Barriers and facilitators at the system, trial, provider, and patient levels were examined. To achieve triangulation, patient encounters were reviewed using chart-stimulated recall (CSR) methods, thereby obtaining a valid assessment of physician performance. Ten oncology providers participated in this study. Nine were oncologists, and one was a clinical research coordinator; five were female; four were White; three were Asian; and three were Black. Barriers to offering CCTs were a lack of trial availability; ineligibility; a lack of knowledge; assumptions about patient interest, benefits, or harms; patient's disease factors; and negative attitudes. Facilitators of offering CCTs were a physical space to discuss trials; greater trial availability; a systematic approach to offering trials; patient factors; patients seeking trials; a lack of comorbidities; patients being younger in age; patients being aware of, asking about, or hearing of trials from their surgeon; and higher levels of altruism. Many of the cited barriers are addressable with the cited facilitators. A larger study is needed to generalize and validate these findings.

Exploration of Patient Retention in Seeking a Second Opinion: A Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

It is common for cancer patients to seek a second opinion for a variety of reasons. Understanding what drives patients to choose to receive treatment with their second opinion provider may uncover opportunities to improve the second opinion process. Therefore, we sought to identify the patient, disease, and treatment characteristics that were associated with second opinion retention rates in patients seeking a second surgical opinion for breast, colon, and pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate patients who sought a second opinion within a large academic health-care system for breast, colon, and pancreatic cancer. Electronic medical records were reviewed for second opinions. Patient demographics and characteristics were collected and compared between the retained group and the nonretained groups.

RESULTS

A total of 237 patients obtained second opinions for breast, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer. Patients that were offered a different treatment plan at their second opinion were more likely to be retained for systemic therapy (P = 0.009) for pancreatic cancer and any treatment for colon cancer (P = 0.003). Seeing a radiation oncologist (P = 0.007) or a plastic surgeon (P = 0.02) during the multidisciplinary consultation increased retention rates for breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons can better identify patients that are more likely to be retained after a second opinion by the individual patient characteristics and treatment factors. Understanding the factors that lead to retention for these three cancer types may help physicians provide the best possible resources for most patients presenting for second opinion evaluations.

Reasons for non-participation in cancer rehabilitation: a scoping literature review

BACKGROUND

Rehabilitation plays an important role in addressing the many challenges of living with cancer, but a large proportion of people with cancer do not participate in available cancer rehabilitation. Hence, reasons for non-participation in cancer rehabilitation need to be explored.

OBJECTIVE

The present study undertakes a scoping review of research examining reasons for non-participation in cancer rehabilitation among people with cancer.

DESIGN

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus and CINAHL for articles published until July 2023. Included studies were hand searched for relevant references and citations.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Method: Studies with qualitative, quantitative or mixed-method design.

POPULATION

Studies targeting adults (> 18) living with cancer, not participating in rehabilitation. Program type: The review included all studies defining program as rehabilitation but excluded clinical trials.

OUTCOME

Studies examining reasons for non-participation in available rehabilitation.

DATA EXTRACTION

The extracted data included author(s)/year of publication, aim, population, information, rehabilitation type and main reasons for non-participation.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies were included (n = 3 quantitative, n = 2 qualitative, n = 4 mixed methods). Reasons for non-participation included physical, psychosocial and practical aspects. The main reason across studies was 'no need for public support' related to receiving sufficient support from family and friends. All studies focused on individual reasons, and structural conditions were rarely present.

CONCLUSION

Research within this field is sparse. Future research should explore how individual reasons for non-participation relate to structural conditions, especially among people in socially disadvantaged positions living with cancer.

Social Determinants of Health and the Availability of Cancer Clinical Trials in the United States

This cohort study investigates whether county-level social determinants of health are associated with cancer clinical trial availability in the United States.

Analysis and Optimization of Equitable US Cancer Clinical Trial Center Access by Travel Time

Importance

Racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are currently underrepresented in clinical trials. Data-driven, quantitative analyses and strategies are required to help address this inequity.

Objective

To systematically analyze the geographical distribution of self-identified racial and socioeconomic demographics within commuting distance to cancer clinical trial centers and other hospitals in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This longitudinal quantitative study used data from the US Census 2020 Decennial and American community survey (which collects data from all US residents), OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Centers list, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, National Trial registry, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data. Statistical analyses were performed on data collected between 2006 and 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Population distributions of socioeconomic deprivation indices and self-identified race within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute 1-way driving commute times from US cancer trial sites. Map overlay of high deprivation index and high diversity areas with existing hospitals, existing major cancer trial centers, and commuting distance to the closest cancer trial center.

Results

The 78 major US cancer trial centers that are involved in 94% of all US cancer trials and included in this study were found to be located in areas with socioeconomically more affluent populations with higher proportions of self-identified White individuals (+10.1% unpaired mean difference; 95% CI, +6.8% to +13.7%) compared with the national average. The top 10th percentile of all US hospitals has catchment populations with a range of absolute sum difference from 2.4% to 35% from one-third each of Asian/multiracial/other (Asian alone, American Indian or Alaska Native alone, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander alone, some other race alone, population of 2 or more races), Black or African American, and White populations. Currently available data are sufficient to identify diverse census tracks within preset commuting times (30, 60, or 120 minutes) from all hospitals in the US (N = 7623). Maps are presented for each US city above 500 000 inhabitants, which display all prospective hospitals and major cancer trial sites within commutable distance to racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations.

Conclusion and Relevance

This study identified biases in the sociodemographics of populations living within commuting distance to US-based cancer trial sites and enables the determination of more equitably commutable prospective satellite hospital sites that could be mobilized for enhanced racial and socioeconomic representation in clinical trials. The maps generated in this work may inform the design of future clinical trials or investigations in enrollment and retention strategies for clinical trials; however, other recruitment barriers still need to be addressed to ensure racial and socioeconomic demographics within the geographical vicinity of a clinical site can translate to equitable trial participant representation.

Landscape of cancer clinical trials in India - a comprehensive analysis of the Clinical Trial Registry-India

Background

Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in India. Clinical trials are critical for driving innovation in cancer therapy, diagnosis, and prevention. This study aims to depict the evolving landscape of cancer clinical trials in India by analysing the clinical trials registered in Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI).

Methods

We identified cancer trials registered in CTRI (between 2007 and 2021) using search terms adapted from the cancer types defined by the National Cancer Institute (USA). We then collated and analysed the publicly available information from CTRI (cancer subtypes, type of trial, treatment intent, type of intervention, sponsor type, recruitment countries) and used descriptive statistics to illustrate the overall as well as year-to-year trend.

Findings

In total, we identified 1988 cancer trials, the majority of which focused on treating cancer (63%) and rest of the trials aimed at optimising the operational aspects of surgery (19%), mitigating treatment-related toxicity (10.6%), or treating cancer-related symptoms (7.8%). Focusing on trials with the intent of treating cancer, we found that most were investigating solid tumours as opposed to haematological malignancies with the most prominent cancer subtypes being breast cancer (17%), head and neck cancer (9.8%), lung cancer (9.6%), and cervical cancer (6.6%). The number of trials conducted in a given cancer subtype from our analysis overall correlated to the incidence, mortality, and 5-year prevalence of the respective cancer subtype in India; however, head and neck cancer and cervical cancer were underrepresented in trials as compared with the disease burden. The most common type of intervention was investigational drugs. The most common sponsor types were global pharmaceutical industry (26%) and research institution and hospital (26%). Despite a relatively high cancer burden, the availability of cancer trials in the Northeastern states of India was limited.

Interpretation

There is a pressing need for clinical cancer research in India to be better aligned with the nation's healthcare needs and disease burden, focusing on prevalent and deadly cancers while ensuring the availability of clinical trials across geographic regions and underserved populations.

Funding

Pi Health USA, a fully owned subsidiary of BeiGene Ltd.

Primary care patient interests in joining a planned multi-cancer early detection clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trials are being conducted and are being planned to assess the safety and efficacy of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests for use in cancer screening. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of primary care patient outreach in recruiting participants to a planned MCED clinical trial, assess patient interest in trial participation, and measure decisional conflict related to participation.

METHODS

The research team used the electronic medical record of a large, urban health care system to identify primary care patients 50-80 years of age who were potentially eligible for a planned MCED trial. We mailed information about the planned MCED trial to identified patients and then contacted the patients by telephone to obtain consent and administer a baseline survey. Subsequently, we contacted consented patients to complete an interview to review the mailed information and elicit perceptions about trial participation. Finally, a research coordinator administered an endpoint telephone survey to assess patient interest in and decisional conflict related to joining the trial.

RESULTS

We randomly identified 1000 eligible patients and were able to make contact with 690 (69%) by telephone. Of the patients contacted, 217 (31%) completed the decision counseling session and 219 (32%) completed the endpoint survey. Among endpoint survey respondents, 177 (81%) expressed interest in joining the MCED trial and 162 (74%) reported low decisional conflict.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients were contacted and about a quarter of those contacted expressed interest in and low decisional conflict about joining the planned MCED trial. Research is needed to determine how to optimize patient outreach and engage patients in shared decision-making about MCED trial participation.

Strategies for increasing accrual in cancer clinical trials: What is the evidence?

INTRODUCTION

Despite the importance of clinical trial participation among cancer patients, few participate-and even fewer patients from ethnic and racial minoritized groups. It is unclear whether suggested approaches to increase accrual are successful. We conducted a scoping review to identify evidence-based approaches to increase participation in cancer treatment clinical trials that demonstrated clear increases in accrual. Notably, more stringent than other published reviews, only those studies with comparison data to measure a difference in accrual rates were included.

METHODS

We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science for English-language articles published from January 1, 2012, to August 8, 2022. Studies were included if they were conducted in the United States, described single or multicomponent interventions, and provided data to measure accrual relative to baseline levels or that compared accrual rates with other interventions.

RESULTS

Sixteen articles were included: six with interventions addressing patient barriers, two addressing provider barriers, seven describing institutional change, and one describing policy change. Key themes emerged, such as a focus on patient education, cultural competency, and building the capacity of clinics. Few studies provide comparative accrual data, making it difficult to identify with certainty any effective, evidence-based approaches for increasing accrual. Some patient- and system-level interventions studies showed modest increases in accrual primarily through pre-post measurement.

CONCLUSION

Despite an extensive body of literature about the barriers that impede cancer treatment trial accrual, along with numerous recommendations for how to overcome these barriers, results reveal surprisingly little evidence published in the last 10 years on interventions that increase accrual relative to baseline levels or compared with other interventions. As clinical trials are a primary vehicle through which we improve cancer care, it is critical that evidence-based approaches are used to inform all efforts to increase accrual. Strategies for increasing participation in cancer clinical trials must be developed and rigorously evaluated so that these strategies can be disseminated, participation in trials can increase and become more equitable, and trial results can become more generalizable.

Disparities in clinical trial enrollment at a Canadian comprehensive cancer center: A 15-year retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Disparities in clinical trials (CTs) enrollment perpetuate inequities in treatment access and outcomes, but there is a paucity of Canadian data. The objective of this study was to examine disparities in cancer CT enrollment at a large Canadian comprehensive cancer center.

METHODS

Retrospective study of CT enrollment among new patient consultations from 2006 to 2019, with follow-up to 2021 (N = 154,880), with the primary outcome of enrollment as a binary variable. Factors associated with CT enrollment were evaluated using multivariable Bayesian hierarchical logistic regression with random effects for most responsible physician (MRP) and geography, adjusted for patient characteristics (sex, age, language, geography, and primary care provider [PCP]), area-level marginalization (residential instability, material deprivation, dependency, and ethnic concentration), disease (cancer site and stage), and MRP (department, sex, language, and training). A sensitivity analysis of the cumulative incidence of enrollment was conducted to account for differences in disease type and follow-up length.

RESULTS

CT enrollment was 11.2% overall, with a 15-year cumulative incidence of 18%. Lower odds of enrollment were observed in patients who were female (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.86), ≥65 years (AOR vs. <40, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.66), non-English speakers (0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77), living ≥250 km away (AOR vs. <15 km, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.80), and without a PCP. Disease characteristics accounted for the largest proportion of observed variation (20.8%), with significantly greater odds of enrollment in patients with genitourinary cancers and late-stage disease.

CONCLUSION

Significant sociodemographic disparities were observed, suggesting the need for targeted strategies to increase diversity in access to cancer CTs in Canada.

A call to action to advance patient-focused and decentralized clinical trials

This commentary is a call to action for a concerted commitment and effort to transform clinical trials and enable people with cancer to participate in clinical trials closer to home. Three key strategies are identified to address major barriers: confront challenges with the interpretation of US Food and Drug Administration Form 1572 requirements (Statement of Investigator); broaden acceptance of local laboratories and imaging centers; and invest in the creation of effective, sustainable partnerships between research centers and local providers.

Precision Immuno-Oncology in NSCLC through Gender Equity Lenses

Precision immuno-oncology involves the development of personalized cancer treatments that are influenced by the unique nature of an individual's DNA, immune cells, and their tumor's molecular characterization. Biological sex influences immunity; females typically mount stronger innate and adaptive immune responses than males. Though more research is warranted, we continue to observe an enhanced benefit for females with lung cancer when treated with combination chemoimmunotherapy in contrast to the preferred approach of utilizing immunotherapy alone in men. Despite the observed sex differences in response to treatments, women remain underrepresented in oncology clinical trials, largely as a result of gender-biased misconceptions. Such exclusion has resulted in the development of less efficacious treatment guidelines and clinical recommendations and has created a knowledge gap in regard to immunotherapy-related survivorship issues such as fertility. To develop a more precise approach to care and overcome the exclusion of women from clinical trials, flexible trial schedules, multilingual communication strategies, financial, and transportation assistance for participants should be adopted. The impact of intersectionality and other determinants of health that affect the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in women must also be considered in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the unique impact of immunotherapy in all women with lung cancer.

Researcher Experience and Comfort With Telemedicine and Remote Patient Monitoring in Cancer Treatment Trials

BACKGROUND

Since the onset of COVID-19, oncology practices across the US have integrated telemedicine (TM) and remote patient monitoring (RPM) into routine care and clinical trials. The extent of provider experience and comfort with TM/RPM in treatment trials, however, is unknown. We surveyed oncology researchers to assess experience and comfort with TM/RPM.

METHODS

Between April 10 and June 1, 2022, we distributed email surveys to US-based members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) whose member records indicated interest or specialization in clinical research. We collected respondent demographic data, clinical trial experience, workplace characteristics, and comfort and experience with TM/RPM use across trial components in phase I and phase II/III trials. TM/RPM was defined as clinical trial-related healthcare and monitoring for patients geographically separated from trial site.

RESULTS

There were 141 surveys analyzed (5.1% response rate). Ninety percent of respondents had been Principal Investigators, 98% practiced in a norural site. Most respondents had enrolled patients in phase I (82%) and phase II/III trials (99%). Across all phases and trial components, there was a higher frequency of researcher comfort compared to experience. Regarding remote care in treatment trials, 75% reported using TM, RPM, or both. Among these individuals, 62% had never provided remote care to trial patients before the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 spurred the rise of TM/RPM in cancer treatment trials, and some TM/RPM use continues in this context. Among oncology researchers, higher levels of comfort compared with real-world experience with TM/RPM reveal opportunities for expanding TM/RPM policies and guidelines in oncology research.

Exclusion of pregnant and lactating persons from breast cancer clinical trials: a review of active trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of pregnancy-associated breast cancer is complex, as providers try to balance risks to the pregnant person and the developing fetus. Given increased case fatality and increasing incidence, there is a pressing need understand the efficacy and safety of different treatment regimens in this population; however, pregnant and lactating people have traditionally been excluded from participating in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Given recent efforts to expand the inclusion criteria for oncology RCTs, this study aimed to review the inclusion/exclusion criteria of current breast cancer RCTs to assess what proportion of trials permitted enrollment of pregnant and lactating persons.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of ClinicalTrials.gov in January 2022 to identify interventional studies of breast cancer in adults that were actively recruiting. The primary outcomes were the exclusion of pregnant and lactating people.

RESULTS

The search identified 1706 studies, of which 1451 met eligibility criteria. Overall, 69.4% and 54.8% of studies excluded pregnant and lactating people, respectively. The exclusion of pregnant and lactating persons differed by study characteristics but extended across all trial designs, locations, phases and interventions. Exclusion of pregnant and lactating persons was most common in trials where the intervention was biological (86.3%), drug (83.5%) or radiation (81.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The exclusion of pregnant and lactating people from clinical trials contributes to evidence gaps in how to treat this population. A paradigm shift is needed that focuses on how research can be used to protect pregnant people from future harms, instead of protecting pregnant people from research-related risks.

Geographic disparity in the distribution of cancer clinical trials in the United States and the associated factors

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding the geographic disparity in the distribution of phase 1-3 clinical trials of new cancer treatments in the US and the associated factors.

OBJECTIVE

To examine county-level variation in the number of phase 1-3 cancer clinical trials and the associations between county characteristics and having phase 1-3 cancer clinical trials.

METHODS

We identified phase 1-3 cancer clinical trials started in the US between January 2008 and December 2022 from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database. We analyzed the distribution of phase 1-3 cancer clinical trials at the county level. Using a mixed-effects regression with states as random intercepts, we estimated the associations between a county's median age, median household income, percentage of population from racial and ethnic minority groups, proportion of population aged 25 years or older with an educational attainment of bachelor's degree or higher, rurality, cancer incidence rate, and number of medical oncologists per population with having any phase 1-3 cancer clinical trial in a county.

RESULTS

After excluding trials that were suspended, terminated, and withdrawn, a total of 14,977 phase 1-3 cancer clinical trials started in the United States between January 2008 and December 2022 were included in the primary analysis. Only 1,333 out of 3,143 counties (42.4%) had 1 or more trial during this period. Counties that were rural, with lower median household income, a less educated population, fewer medical oncologists per population, and lower cancer incidence rates demonstrated a significantly lower likelihood of having phase 1-3 cancer clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed substantial geographic disparities in the distribution of phase 1-3 cancer clinical trials. Limited trial availability in low-income, low-education, low-oncologist, and rural areas can be a significant barrier to patient participation, potentially hindering adoption and worsening outcomes in disadvantaged populations.

Broadening Eligibility Criteria and Diversity among Patients for Cancer Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Certain populations have been historically underrepresented in clinical trials. Broadening eligibility criteria is one approach to inclusive clinical research and achieving enrollment goals. How broadened trial eligibility criteria affect the diversity of eligible participants is unknown.

METHODS

Using a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database, we identified a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with 22 cancer types between April 1, 2013 and December 31, 2022 who received systemic therapy (N=235,234) for cancer. We evaluated strict versus broadened eligibility criteria using performance status and liver, kidney, and hematologic function around first line of therapy. We performed logistic regression to estimate odds ratios for exclusion by strict criteria and their association with measures of patient diversity, including sex, age, race or ethnicity, and area-level socioeconomic status (SES); estimated the impact of broadening criteria on the number and distribution of eligible patients; and performed Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios for real-world overall survival (rwOS) comparing patients meeting strict versus broadened criteria.

RESULTS

When applying common strict cutoffs for eligibility criteria to patients with complete data and weighting each cancer type equally, 48% of patients were eligible for clinical trials. Female (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25 to 1.35), older (age 75+ vs. 18 to 49 years old: odds ratio, 3.04; 95% CI, 2.85 to 3.24), Latinx (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.39 to 1.54), non-Latinx Black (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.16), and lower-SES patients were more likely to be excluded using strict eligibility criteria. Broadening criteria increased the number of eligible patients by 78%, with the strongest impact for older, female, non-Latinx Black, and lower-SES patients. Patients who met only broadened criteria had worse rwOS versus those with strict criteria (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Data-driven evaluation of clinical trial eligibility criteria may optimize the eligibility of certain historically underrepresented groups and promote access to more inclusive trials. (Sponsored by Flatiron Health.).

Pharmacy Assistance Programs for Oral Anticancer Drugs: A Narrative Review

Oral anticancer medications (OAMs) are high priced with a significant cost-sharing burden to patients, which can lead to catastrophic financial, psychosocial, and clinical repercussions. Cost-conscious prescribing and inclusion of low-cost alternatives can help mitigate this burden, but cost transparency at the point of prescribing remains a major barrier to doing so. Pharmacy assistance programs, including co-payment cards and patient assistance programs administered by manufacturers and foundation-based grants, remain an essential resource for patients facing prohibitive co-payments for OAMs. However, access to these programs is fraught with complexities, including lack of trained financial navigators, limited transparency on eligibility criteria, onerous documentation burdens, and limits in available funding. Despite these drawbacks and the potential for such programs to incentivize manufacturers to keep list prices high, assistance programs have been demonstrated to improve financial well-being for patients with cancer. The increasing development of integrated specialty pharmacies with dedicated, trained pharmacy staff can help improve and standardize access to such programs, but these services are disproportionately available to patients seen at tertiary care centers. Multistakeholder interventions are needed to mitigate the burden of cost sharing for OAMs, including increased clinician knowledge of financial resources and novel assistance mechanisms, investment of institutions in trained financial navigation services and centralized platforms to identify assistance programs, and policies to cap out-of-pocket spending and improve transparency of rates charged by pharmacy benefit managers to a health plan.

CAR T-Cell Immunotherapy in Minority Patients with Lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Administration of anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CART19) immunotherapy for large B-cell lymphomas (LBCLs), a subset of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), involves high costs and access to specialized tertiary care centers. We investigated whether minority health populations (MHPs) have equal access to CART19 and whether their outcomes are similar to those of non-MHPs.

METHODS

We analyzed the prevalence and clinical outcomes of patients treated with commercial CART19 at two geographically and socioeconomically different institutions: the Abramson Cancer Center (ACC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) and the Knight Cancer Institute (KCI, Portland, Oregon).

RESULTS

In the ACC catchment area, 8956 patients were diagnosed with NHL between 2015 and 2019 (latest available data from the state registry), including 17.9% MHPs. In the ACC, between 2018 and 2022 (CART became available in 2018), 1492 patients with LBCL were treated, and 194 received CART19. The proportion of MHPs was 15.7% for the entire LBCL cohort but only 6.7% for the CART19 cohort. During the same time, in the KCI catchment area, 4568 patients were diagnosed with NHL, including 4.2% MHPs. In the KCI, 396 patients with LBCL were treated, and 47 received CART19. The proportion of MHPs was 6.6% for the entire LBCL cohort and 4.2% for the CART19 cohort. The 3-month response, survival, and toxicities after CART19 infusion showed similar results, although the number of patients who were treated was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the access of MHPs to tertiary centers for LBCL care was preserved but appeared reduced for commercial CART19 immunotherapy. Although clinical outcomes of MHPs seemed similar to those of non-MHPs, the small sample size precludes drawing firm conclusions. Further studies are needed. (Funded by the Laffey McHugh Foundation and others.).

Cancer Clinical Trials: Advancing Care, Inspiring Hope

Cancer clinical trials are instrumental in driving forward medical advancements and enhancing patient outcomes. However, despite their significance, only a small fraction of adult cancer patients, less than one in 20, participate in these trials, indicating significant obstacles in recruitment and engagement. These trials not only assess treatment effectiveness but also serve as vibrant platforms where scientific ingenuity converges with human resilience, fostering a culture of exploration and empowerment. Furthermore, they spur innovation in treatment methods, supportive care, and survivorship strategies, addressing the diverse needs of patients. Moreover, clinical trials prioritize diversity and inclusivity, ensuring that treatments are relevant across various demographic groups and promoting equity in healthcare access. Despite challenges, cancer clinical trials have showcased remarkable resilience and adaptability, particularly in navigating the complexities of the COVID-19 pandemic, underscoring their flexibility and ingenuity. By acknowledging the invaluable contributions of patients and researchers, we recommit to propelling cancer science forward and reshaping the landscape of cancer care for future generations.

Barriers to Clinical Trial Implementation Among Community Care Centers

Importance

While an overwhelming majority of patients diagnosed with cancer express willingness to participate in clinical trials, only a fraction will enroll onto a research protocol.

Objective

To identify critical barriers to trial enrollment to translate findings into actionable practice changes that increase cancer clinical trial enrollment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This survey study included designated site contacts at oncology practices with teams who were highly involved with the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Community Oncology Research Institute (ACORI) clinical trials activities, all American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-ACCC collaboration pilot sites, and/or sites providing care to at least 25% African American and Hispanic residents. To determine participation trends among health care practices in oncology-focused research, identify barriers to clinical trial implementation and operation, and establish unmet needs for cancer clinics interested in trial participation, a 34-question survey was designed. Survey questions were defined within 3 categories: cancer center demographic characteristics, clinical trial characteristics, and referral practices. The survey was distributed through email and was open from June 20 through October 5, 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Participation in and barriers to conducting oncology trials in different community oncology settings.

Results

The survey was distributed to 100 cancer centers, with completion by 58 centers (58%) across 25 states. Fifty-two centers (88%) reported that they conduct therapeutic clinical trials, of which 33 (63%) were from urban settings, 11 (21%) were from suburban settings, and 8 (15%) were from rural settings. Only 25% of rural practices (2 of 8) offered phase 1 trials, compared with 67% of urban practices (22 of 33) (P = .01). Respondents noted challenges in conducting research, including patient recruitment (27 respondents [52%]), limited staffing (27 [52%]), and nonrelevant trials for their patient population (25 [48%]). Among sites not offering therapeutic trials, barriers to research conduct included limited infrastructure, funding, and staffing. Most centers (46 of 58 [79%]) referred patients to outside centers for clinical trial enrollment, particularly in the context of late-stage disease and/or disease progression. Only 17 of these sites (37%) had established protocols for patient follow-up subsequent to outside referral.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this national survey study of barriers to clinical trial implementation, most sites offered therapeutic trials, but there were significant disparities in trial availability across care settings. Furthermore, fundamental deficiencies in trial support infrastructure limited research activity, including within programs currently conducting research as well as at sites interested in future clinical research opportunities. These results identify crucial unmet needs for oncology clinics to effectively offer clinical trials to patients seeking care.

Digital twins for health: a scoping review

The use of digital twins (DTs) has proliferated across various fields and industries, with a recent surge in the healthcare sector. The concept of digital twin for health (DT4H) holds great promise to revolutionize the entire healthcare system, including management and delivery, disease treatment and prevention, and health well-being maintenance, ultimately improving human life. The rapid growth of big data and continuous advancement in data science (DS) and artificial intelligence (AI) have the potential to significantly expedite DT research and development by providing scientific expertise, essential data, and robust cybertechnology infrastructure. Although various DT initiatives have been underway in the industry, government, and military, DT4H is still in its early stages. This paper presents an overview of the current applications of DTs in healthcare, examines consortium research centers and their limitations, and surveys the current landscape of emerging research and development opportunities in healthcare. We envision the emergence of a collaborative global effort among stakeholders to enhance healthcare and improve the quality of life for millions of individuals worldwide through pioneering research and development in the realm of DT technology.

Association of cancer diagnosis with disability status among older survivors of colorectal cancer: a population-based retrospective cohort study

Background

Older cancer survivors likely experience physical function limitations due to cancer and its treatments, leading to disability and early mortality. Existing studies have focused on factors associated with surgical complications and mortality risk rather than factors associated with the development of poor disability status (DS), a proxy measure of poor performance status, in cancer survivors. We aimed to identify factors associated with the development of poor DS among older survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC) and compare poor DS rates to an age-sex-matched, non-cancer cohort.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study utilized administrative data from the Texas Cancer Registry Medicare-linked database. The study cohort consisted of 13,229 survivors of CRC diagnosed between 2005 and 2013 and an age-sex-matched, non-cancer cohort of 13,225 beneficiaries. The primary outcome was poor DS, determined by Davidoff's method, using predictors from 12 months of Medicare claims after cancer diagnosis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify risk factors associated with the development of poor DS.

Results

Among the survivors of CRC, 97% were 65 years or older. After a 9-year follow-up, 54% of survivors of CRC developed poor DS. Significant factors associated with future poor DS included: age at diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.50 for >80 years old), female sex (HR = 1.50), race/ethnicity (HR = 1.34 for Hispanic and 1.21 for Black), stage at diagnosis (HR = 2.26 for distant metastasis), comorbidity index (HR = 2.18 for >1), and radiation therapy (HR = 1.21). Having cancer (HR = 1.07) was significantly associated with developing poor DS in the pooled cohorts; age and race/ethnicity were also significant factors.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that a CRC diagnosis is independently associated with a small increase in the risk of developing poor DS after accounting for other known factors. The study identified risk factors for developing poor DS in CRC survivors, including Hispanic and Black race/ethnicity, age, sex, histologic stage, and comorbidities. These findings underscore the importance of consistent physical function assessments, particularly among subsets of older survivors of CRC who are at higher risk of disability, to prevent developing poor DS.

Addressing disparities in cancer clinical trials: a roadmap to more equitable accrual

The Georgia Center for Oncology Research and Education (Georgia CORE) and the Georgia Society of Clinical Oncology (GASCO) held a one-day summit exploring opportunities and evidence-based interventions to address disparities in cancer clinical trials. The purpose of the summit was to identify clear and concise recommendations aimed at decreasing clinical trial accrual disparities in Georgia for rural and minority populations. The summit included expert presentations, panel discussions with leaders from provider organizations throughout Georgia, and breakout sessions to allow participants to critically discuss the information presented. Over 120 participants attended the summit. Recognizing the need for evidence-based interventions to improve clinical trial accrual among rural Georgians and persons of color, summit participants identified four key areas of focus that included: improving clinical trial design, providing navigation for all, enhancing public education and awareness of cancer clinical trials, and identifying potential policy and other opportunities. A comprehensive list of takeaways and action plans was developed in the four key areas of focus with the expectation that implementation of the strategies that emerged from the summit will enhance cancer clinical trial accrual for all Georgians.

TBCRC 057: Survey about willingness to participate in cancer clinical trials during the pandemic

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer patients experienced heightened anxiety during the pandemic. Also, modifications to clinical trial activities allowing for virtual platforms, local assessments, and greater flexibility were introduced to facilitate participation. We sought to evaluate the association between pandemic-related anxiety and willingness to participate in trials and how pandemic-era modifications to trial activities affect the decision to participate.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey from August to September, 2021 of patients with breast cancer assessing pandemic-related anxiety; clinical trials knowledge and attitudes; willingness to participate during and before the pandemic; and how each modification affects the decision to participate. Fisher's exact tests evaluated differences in proportions and two-sample t-tests evaluated differences in means. The association of pandemic-related anxiety with a decline in willingness to participate during compared to prior to the pandemic was modeled using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 385 respondents who completed the survey, 81% reported moderate-severe pandemic-related anxiety. Mean willingness to participate in a trial was lower during the pandemic than prior [2.97 (SD 1.17) vs. 3.10 (SD 1.09), (p < 0.001)]. Severe anxiety was associated with higher odds of diminished willingness to participate during the pandemic compared to prior (OR 5.07). Each of the modifications, with the exception of opting out of research-only blood tests, were endorsed by >50% of respondents as strategies that would increase their likelihood of deciding to participate.

CONCLUSIONS

While pandemic-related anxiety was associated with diminished willingness to participate in trials, the leading reasons for reluctance to consider trial participation were unrelated to the pandemic but included worries about not getting the best treatment, side effects, and delaying care. Patients view trial modifications favorably, supporting continuation of these modifications, as endorsed by the National Cancer Institute and others.

Exploring patient-reported barriers to participating in proton therapy clinical trials

Introduction

Clinical trials lead the progress in healthcare. To ensure reliable research conclusions, it is essential to enroll diverse patient groups. Identifying and understanding patient-reported barriers to clinical trials may help enhance recruitment among diverse patient groups.The clinical potential of proton therapy (PT) to reduce late effects is being investigated in clinical trials worldwide. Thus, for some patients, PT is only accessible by participating in clinical trials.Individuals with smoking-related head and neck cancer (HNC) are sometimes socioeconomically deprived, leading to barriers to trial participation. This study aims to identify barriers to their participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving PT.

Method

Interviews were conducted with 14 HNC patients declining participation in an RCT involving PT. The interviews were transcribed and systematically analysed using an inductive approach identifying categories and themes.

Results

The identified barriers to RCT-participation are: (1) existential distress, which influenced participants' mental and cognitive capacities, (2) insufficient RCT-related knowledge arising from information overload during clinical consultations, (3) the wish for safety and familiarity during the treatment trajectory, particularly for participants needing accommodation during  radiotherapy, and (4) the motivation for study participation was impacted by uncertainty due to randomisation and clinical equipoise. Existential distress is identified as an overarching theme because it influences and amplifies the other three themes.

Conclusion

Existential distress is a central theme that influences and amplifies other participation barriers in PT RCTs. It affects participants' comprehension of trial information, their preference for familiar environments, and their motivation to participate in clinical trials.

Review of Racial and Ethnic Representation of Participants Enrolled in Pediatric Clinical Trials of Oncology Drugs Conducted Through FDA Written Requests

Importance

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act states that in issuing a written request (WR), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shall consider the adequate representation (eg, proportionate to the disease population) of children from racial and ethnic minority populations. If the terms of the WR are fulfilled, the FDA may grant an additional 6 months of exclusivity for any unexpired patents and exclusivities attached to approved indications.

Objective

To report on the race and ethnicity of participants enrolled in pediatric studies conducted in response to WRs for which pediatric exclusivity was granted between 2001 and 2021.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective review examines pediatric exclusivity request submissions for oncologic drugs that received pediatric exclusivity between December 2001 and January 2021 based on fulfillment of the requirements of a WR that were identified using the FDA's Document Archiving Reporting and Regulatory Tracking System. Demographic data were manually abstracted from supporting study reports, and data were pooled across submissions for the analysis. Data were analyzed throughout 2022 and 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Representation by race, sex, and ethnicity in pediatric studies conducted in response to WRs.

Results

A total of 22 pediatric exclusivity requests were identified, comprising 40 studies and 2025 patients. Most trials (26 [65%]) in the analysis were cooperative group studies. Representation by race was as follows: American Indian/Alaska Native (13 [0.6%]), African American/Black (228 [11.3%]), Asian (92 [4.6%]), Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander (33 [1.6%]), White (1303 [64.3%]), other (194 [9.6%]), and unknown/not reported (162 [8.0%]). Representation by sex was female individuals (41.2%) and male individuals (58.8%). Ethnicity was as follows: Hispanic (226 [5.7%]), non-Hispanic (910 [22.5%]), unknown/not reported ethnicity (2800 [69.1%]), and other ethnicity (114 [2.8%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

The study results suggest that overall, representation of participants of racial and ethnic minority groups in studies supporting pediatric exclusivity requests appear comparable with the racial distribution of childhood cancers in the US based on data from the National Childhood Cancer Registry Explorer. However, fewer Hispanic participants were enrolled in the trials we reviewed (8%) compared with the representation of Hispanic patients in the National Childhood Cancer Registry (28%). This discrepancy may be partially explained by the large proportion of participants with unknown information regarding ethnicity. Further research into the reasons for the large proportion of participants with missing ethnicity information is needed.

Global Equity in Clinical Trials: An ASCO Policy Statement

ASCO is a global professional society representing more than 50,000 physicians, other health care professionals, and advocates in over 100 countries specializing in cancer treatment, diagnosis, prevention, and advocacy. ASCO strives, through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality of patient care, to create a world where cancer is prevented or cured, and every survivor is healthy. In this pursuit, health equity remains the guiding institutional principle that applies to all its activities across the cancer care continuum. This ASCO policy statement emphasizes the urgent need for global equity in clinical trials, aiming to enhance access and representation in cancer research as it not only improves cancer outcomes but also upholds principles of fairness and justice in health care.

Considerations for master protocols using external controls

There has been an increasing use of master protocols in oncology clinical trials because of its efficiency to accelerate cancer drug development and flexibility to accommodate multiple substudies. Depending on the study objective and design, a master protocol trial can be a basket trial, an umbrella trial, a platform trial, or any other form of trials in which multiple investigational products and/or subpopulations are studied under a single protocol. Master protocols can use external data and evidence (e.g. external controls) for treatment effect estimation, which can further improve efficiency of master protocol trials. This paper provides an overview of different types of external controls and their unique features when used in master protocols. Some key considerations in master protocols with external controls are discussed including construction of estimands, assessment of fit-for-use real-world data, and considerations for different types of master protocols. Similarities and differences between regular randomized controlled trials and master protocols when using external controls are discussed. A targeted learning-based causal roadmap is presented which constitutes three key steps: (1) define a target statistical estimand that aligns with the causal estimand for the study objective, (2) use an efficient estimator to estimate the target statistical estimand and its uncertainty, and (3) evaluate the impact of causal assumptions on the study conclusion by performing sensitivity analyses. Two illustrative examples for master protocols using external controls are discussed for their merits and possible improvement in causal effect estimation.

What influences trust in and understanding of clinical trials? An analysis of information and communication technology use and online health behavior from the Health Information National Trends Survey

BACKGROUND

Using information and communication technologies to seek, discuss, and share health-related information influences people's trust and knowledge of several health practices. However, we know little about the associations between individuals' information and communication technology use and their perceptions of trust and knowledge of clinical trials. Examining these associations may lead to the identification of target audiences and channels for developing effective educational interventions and campaigns about clinical trials.

METHODS

In this study, we analyzed Health Information National Trends Survey data to document perceptions of clinical trial-related knowledge and trust that were recently added as questions in this annual national survey of US adults. We also examined correlates of these clinical trial perceptions that included sociodemographic factors and individuals' use of information and communication technologies to seek health information, discuss such information with their healthcare providers, and share the information in their network.

RESULTS

More than 90% of participants had no or limited perceived knowledge about clinical trials. Knowledge was higher among those who seek or discuss health-related information online. Differences in perceived knowledge and trust emerged for some racial/ethnic subgroups and other demographic factors. Providers were considered the most trusted source of information (73.6%), followed by health organizations (19.4%) and social support (7.1%). Trust in health organizations compared to health providers was higher among those who used online resources to share health information online with others. Trust in social support was significantly higher among those who used information and communication technologies to communicate about health.

CONCLUSION

Based on these findings, we recommend developing online resources about clinical trials to be distributed through social media. These resources should facilitate a dialogue and be targeted to several groups considering their information and communication technologies' use.

Defining the Role of the Advanced Practice Provider Within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program

PURPOSE

Oncology advanced practice providers (APPs), including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacists, contribute significantly to quality cancer care. Understanding the research-related roles of APPs in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) could lead to enhanced protocol development, trial conduct, and accrual.

METHODS

The 2022 NCORP Landscape Assessment Survey asked two questions about the utilization and roles of APPs in the NCORP.

RESULTS

A total of 271 practice groups completed the 2022 survey, with a response rate of 90%. Of the 259 nonpediatric exclusive practice groups analyzed in this study, 92% used APPs for clinical care activities and 73% used APPs for research activities. APPs most often provided clinical care for patients enrolled in trials (97%), followed by assistance with coordination (65%), presenting/explaining clinical trials (59%), screening patients (49%), ordering investigational drugs (37%), and consenting participants (24%). Some groups reported APPs as an enrolling investigator (18%) and/or participating in institutional oversight/selection of trials (15%). Only 5% of NCORP sites reported APPs as a site primary investigator for trials, and very few (3%) reported APPs participating in protocol development.

CONCLUSION

Practice groups report involving APPs in clinical research within the NCORP network; however, opportunities for growth exists. As team-based care has enhanced clinical practice in oncology, this same approach can be used to enhance successful research. Suggested strategies include supporting APP research-related time, recognition, and education. The findings of this survey and subsequent recommendations may be applied to all adult oncology practices that participate in clinical research.

Advancing Inclusive Research (AIR) Site Alliance: Facilitating the inclusion of historically underrepresented people in oncology and ophthalmology clinical research

BACKGROUND

The Advancing Inclusive Research (AIR) Site Alliance is composed of clinical research centers that partner with Genentech, a biotechnology company, to advance the representation of diverse patient populations in its oncology and ophthalmology clinical trials, test recruitment, and retention approaches and establish best practices to leverage across the industry to achieve health equity.

METHODS

Through a data-driven selection process, Genentech identified 6 oncology and 3 ophthalmology partners that focus on reaching historically underrepresented patients in clinical trials and worked collaboratively to share knowledge and explore original ways of increasing clinical study access for every patient, including sites co-creation of a Protocol Entry Criteria Guideline with inclusion principles.

RESULTS

For patients, three publicly available educational videos about clinical trials were created in multiple languages. The AIR Site Alliance has also defined invoiceable services for sites to enhance patient support; this has been built into the new study budget templates for sustainability. For healthcare professionals (HCPs), the first-of-its-kind AIR Educational Program was developed to focus on identifying and addressing bias and engaging historically underrepresented patient populations in trials. The sites also co-created videos for HCPs and patients on why advancing inclusive research matters. Over 16 regional health equity symposia have been delivered for patients, HCPs, and community leaders.

CONCLUSIONS

This AIR Site Alliance is a model for other site alliances, including Kenya, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Such alliances will build a robust and sustainable research ecosystem that includes diverse patient groups and encourages change across the healthcare system.